'You will burn in hell'

[Frank Merton]

When people are engaged in the evidence of how things are in this world, the more genuine a healthy society becomes.There is no need for the filth of Religion, Pornography, heavy drugs, gambling, and sucking up nonrenewable resources like there is no tomorrow.

Religion is not filth, at least most of the time.

[Davros of Skaro]

Religion is not filth, at least most of the time.

Community is good.

Religion is filth in disguise.

[029b10]

Or it might not, again we simply don't know.

I am can relate to that. And I appreciate the conversation, even if we might not agree you at least got my mind off this hydraulic steering box that I've trying to get reassembled which I can't find any info on and the mfg says

that they can't be reassembled and work unless they where marked when disassembled.

I think that just want to sell and $800 steer box, but I couldn't find any hdrl repair shops that would say that they could get it back working either so I'll give it a couple more tries but anyways appreciated the banter

[libstaK]

What you just did was no different then what you said as you were pointing the finger.

I know, it doesn't feel any better to receive such tidings than it does to give them.

But to be honest, it really just left me feeling as though my contribution had already been hung on a low rung before I made it. I create and discarded several posts and there was a little of the feeling of frustration at recognizing that there was a real difference in what I wished to contribute compared to how it was going to be received.

Marcus said it better than I, it is a perception that comes readily when dealing with atheists of the Dawkins school rather than any others and I probably would have been better to remember that most atheists are just genuine non believers without an agenda.

Edited May 26, 2014 by libstaK

[libstaK]

I guess I never knew that was an insult. I thought that 'apologetics' was the correct name for a lot of the argumentation that goes on here as far as supporting or defending the Christian position; I didn't realize it was any worse than labeling someone a 'debater'.

I guess the inherent connotation that comes with the term is that we have some to apologize for, we say sorry when we are wrong. It can be perceived by those who wish to as the position of someone defending a position that is wrong and that is how it is used. I am glad you have never seen it that way but I fear a great many may smile at the notion that an "apologetic" position is about to be expounded with a little sense of superiority.

[libstaK]

The Apologist William Lane Craig said that any evidence presented to him to show him wrong is only a trick, and he would reject it.

Thank you for presenting the reason for my comment in the first place. Someone should flag this as "case in point" on what some atheist denote an apologist position to be. It is not my position. I am not debating, I am presenting my position and others present theirs. There is no "evidence" I can present that would convince others, nor is there any that will sway me. I have already taken that journey into evidence and it is personal to me. Having taken that journey and comprehending it I value others journeys as just as important as my own, my own niece is an atheist, I do not try to sway her, nor her me, but we explore a great many things when we get into deep discussions together and both love to have those deep reflective conversations.

[Doug1029]

Honestly, I don't see the point in infinity. Eventually it gets boring.

Infinity is what you get when you try to divide by zero.

That's just another way of saying that the result is undefined. In other words, we haven't got a clue what it is. And I guess that's what the religionists mean when they talk about "eternal life" - they haven't got a clue what it is.

In fact, we may be only a generation or two from giving ourselves eternal life. And that may not be all it's cracked up to be. Imagine spending 500 years working at the job you have now. Imagine your body deteriorating, but not being able to die. Imagine the memories that make you you gradually fading until you don't know who you are. Heaven might turn out to be hell.

Doug

Edited May 26, 2014 by Doug1029

[Davros of Skaro]

Thank you for presenting the reason for my comment in the first place. Someone should flag this as "case in point" on what some atheist denote an apologist position to be. It is not my position. I am not debating, I am presenting my position and others present theirs. There is no "evidence" I can present that would convince others, nor is there any that will sway me. I have already taken that journey into evidence and it is personal to me. Having taken that journey and comprehending it I value others journeys as just as important as my own, my own niece is an atheist, I do not try to sway her, nor her me, but we explore a great many things when we get into deep discussions together and both love to have those deep reflective conversations.

Yes.

Your witness of the Holy Spirit in your Heart will not shake your belief.Even though people have the same experience for other beliefs which is proven, and shown neurologicaly.

[libstaK]

Yes.

Your witness of the Holy Spirit in your Heart will not shake your belief.Even though people have the same experience for other beliefs which is proven, and shown neurologicaly.

I have never mentioned my "witness of the Holy Spirit in my Heart" and have never seen that as being the core and cause of my belief in God. I am not an evangelical or newborn christian and don't bandy about those terms as a means of influence or evidence in any way shape or form. There you go again, tarring everyone with the same brush. I expected no different.

[Doug1029]

What about the water of the womb?

That would apply the first time, but "born AGAIN?"

Doug

[Frank Merton]

No matter how much time you spend in heaven you will never have been there for an infinity of time. There will always be a future and a past.

Now if you are a Buddha and go to Nirvana and enter timeless, formless bliss, then I don't know for sure.

[Doug1029]

Man's life in the flesh on earth is stated in Genesis as being 120 years, given as the first death. Check the historical records, while a number of claims, only 1 record out of hundred of millions that is represented as being verified to document that anyone has lived over 120 years, is that just coincidence? But to answer your question about what the Bible says that people living longer than 120 years.

Did you forget Methuselah?

The tree named Methuselah is over 4000 years old. And a Norway spruce in Sweden is over 9550 years old. That's approaching immortality.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

If one is wrong they are wrong and no amount of their believing otherwise will change it. One would pray for the wisdom to recognize when even our closest belief is wrong and the luck to have someone come along to show us, even if the man's name is Dawkins.

[Frank Merton]

Did you forget Methuselah?

The tree named Methuselah is over 4000 years old. And a Norway spruce in Sweden is over 9550 years old. That's approaching immortality.

Doug

Each species seems to have a natural maximum lifespan, which varies considerably. To me this is evidence that senescence and death are programmed by our genes, and is changeable by natural and even artificial selection.

[libstaK]

If one is wrong they are wrong and no amount of their believing otherwise will change it. One would pray for the wisdom to recognize when even our closest belief is wrong and the luck to have someone come along to show us, even if the man's name is Dawkins.

And who would "one" pray to for this wisdom? Are you suggesting a believer should pray to God to show them they are wrong and that there is no God?

Of course, if you are wrong but are Dawkins, praying for wisdom just isn't going to happen at all.

[Frank Merton]

And who would "one" pray to for this wisdom? Are you suggesting a believer should pray to God to show them they are wrong and that there is no God?

Of course, if you are wrong but are Dawkins, praying for wisdom just isn't going to happen at all.

Atheists do that sometimes -- use vocabulary they think the other side can understand. It is of course metaphor, but then I'm sure you realized this.

[libstaK]

Atheists do that sometimes -- use vocabulary they think the other side can understand. It is of course metaphor, but then I'm sure you realized this.

Yes I did, but you have to admit it was amusing to contemplate on a literalist basis. I am not the "other" side though, I just don't believe the same things you do. I am me and you are you, I fail to see why I should follow what you believe any more than you would wish to follow what I believe. Moreover for me, it would mean negating what experience has made undeniable to me - it would be a dishonest act on my part and futile in the end.

[Davros of Skaro]

I have never mentioned my "witness of the Holy Spirit in my Heart" and have never seen that as being the core and cause of my belief in God. I am not an evangelical or newborn christian and don't bandy about those terms as a means of influence or evidence in any way shape or form. There you go again, tarring everyone with the same brush. I expected no different.

You can get in big trouble if you denied the Holy Spirit.So of course it would be part of your experience.

You accept the Holy Spirit? Right?

[GoldenWolf]

And who would "one" pray to for this wisdom? Are you suggesting a believer should pray to God to show them they are wrong and that there is no God?

Of course, if you are wrong but are Dawkins, praying for wisdom just isn't going to happen at all.

Maybe you guys have been praying to the wrong god all this time. Maybe there is a curse on prayers. Maybe Satan has been stealing prayers.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Mystic Crusader

[libstaK]

You can get in big trouble if you denied the Holy Spirit.So of course it would be part of your experience.

You accept the Holy Spirit? Right?

Who would I get into trouble with? Yes I believe in the Holy Spirit, I hold it sacred and do not debate the matter (therefore until now I have never used it to persuade or dissuade any matter and never will). We all have that which is sacred, whether we are atheist or believer, my experiences with the Holy Spirit belong to me, that is true for each person and that is all that there is to say on the matter.

Edited May 26, 2014 by libstaK

[Frank Merton]

Yes I did, but you have to admit it was amusing to contemplate on a literalist basis. I am not the "other" side though, I just don't believe the same things you do. I am me and you are you, I fail to see why I should follow what you believe any more than you would wish to follow what I believe. Moreover for me, it would mean negating what experience has made undeniable to me - it would be a dishonest act on my part and futile in the end.

I state my views and the reasons for them. I try to remain objective and clear-headed. I think your "experience," whatever it was, is not objective and clear-headed, nor even wise. This is my opinion, but if I had some other opinion I would have some other opinion. I don't.

Religions have a bad track record. So do ideologies of all sorts. This derives I think from their inherent irrationality. I would like to think I did my part, egoistic of me for sure, to help keep them out of power and even persuade everyone to abandon them.

[029b10]

That would apply the first time, but "born AGAIN?"

Doug

The text was teaching Genesis 2. At the time the comment regarding being reborn in was made in John 3:1-2;

3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God:

It is was teaching Genesis 2:7

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; Gen 1:9-10

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7

So do you think that the dust was the dry land? It states in Genesis 2:5 ..for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Does the human body consist of just two states of matter, SOLID and GAS? No, there are three states of matter having matter, or at least there was back when I was going to high school, Solid, Liquid and Gas. And the human body is formed by all three. So the interpretation that the LORD God formed man out of only Solid and Gas is as false as the fourth state of matter, plasma.

John 3:10-11

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. [in spirit an in Pro 23:23]

You can take Solid, Liquid, Gas and stir them, mix them or whatever, you can even throw in all the ionized gas you want and you can't form a living being. That' not how it works lol https://www.youtube....h?v=lJ0yD-9CDwI

Edited May 26, 2014 by 029b10

[Davros of Skaro]

Who would I get into trouble with? Yes I believe in the Holy Spirit, I hold it sacred and do not debate the matter (therefore until now I have never used it to persuade or dissuade any matter and never will). We all have that which is sacred, whether we are atheist or believer, my experiences with the Holy Spirit belong to me, that is true for each person and that is all that there is to say on the matter.

I rest my case.

[libstaK]

I state my views and the reasons for them. I try to remain objective and clear-headed. I think your "experience," whatever it was, is not objective and clear-headed, nor even wise. This is my opinion, but if I had some other opinion I would have some other opinion. I don't.

That is a lot of opinion about experiences I have not discussed - so I'll let that be the testament to the voracity of your position on that.

Religions have a bad track record. So do ideologies of all sorts. This derives I think from their inherent irrationality. I would like to think I did my part, egoistic of me for sure, to help keep them out of power and even persuade everyone to abandon them.

Religions have as much good and bad in them as the people who practice within them. It is a matter of the evolution of human understanding, both on a secular moral level and a religious level. If someone truly knew there was a God, then most of what has occurred in history simply would not be possible, therefore a great many have claimed belief where there was none - in my opinion. That is not the same as saying that either the religion or the existence of God is wrong. It is saying that human nature has some brutal flaws hardwired into it from generations upon generations of suffering. The matter of desire and suffering is at the crux of the issue, not whether or not God exists. Blaming it on God or religion is a handy deflection and has done a good job in helping humanity ignore their flaws.

Whether one believes in a God or not is of little consequence to me as a believer and does not colour my opinion of whether they would be in anything resembling heaven or hell as it's popularily expounded. It is what drives us as human beings - empathy and compassion or desire and lust for power that informs me of whether we are evolving or decaying as a species and civilization.

[libstaK]

I rest my case.

A youtube clip does not rest your case, it just shows you are a follower of youtube clips.